February 16, 2015

Chuck Todd asked David Axelrod on yesterday's "Meet the Press" (which I have to transcribe myself from the video, at about 24:20). A good question, but Axelrod said:

"The thing about Walker is we haven't seen him yet. We don't know how he's going to deal with the pressures of running for President. I've been through this a few times and the bar gets raised every time and whether it clears those bars is a big question. I don't know yet. I think Bush would be a very tough candidate for him... for her."

LOL on the "him... her." But Axelrod is coasting. This was a perfunctory repeat of what he'd said in an that I blogged last Wednesday. There, he said:

"So he goes to Iowa and gives a good speech to a few hundred activists…and he’s the flavor of the month.... Presidential politics is like pole vaulting. Everyone can clear the early bar. But then the bar gets raised. And the reality is, how do you handle it when it gets really, really rough, when you’re under constant scrutiny, when everything you say becomes an issue?"

I scoffed at the pole vaulting analogy the first time. And, of course, I kicked him for seeming not to know that Walker has already showed us how he "handles it when it gets really, really rough."

On "Meet the Press," Joe Scarborough picked up the slack: "We saw Rand Paul stumbling early. Scott Walker has been through 3 tough fights in a really blue state in 4 years."

Todd got very excited at that point and said: "It's not about the stumble... it's how you recover, and the guy who knows how to recover best will probably end up with the nomination."

I don't feel we got any good discussion of the great question that used for this post heading. One thing I've been thinking about is that if Hillary Clinton faces Scott Walker, we'll need to dig into the story of her struggles with the teachers union in Arkansas back when Bill Clinton was governor in the 1980s. Scott Walker may be known for his standing up to the public employee unions back in 2011, but Hillary's first big political success came in the form of standing up to the teachers union. The issue will devolve into which way a governor should stand up to the entrenched interests of the public unions. Hillary's approach got her and Bill accused of racism. Remember that?

[A]t Hillary’s urging... education was made the signature issue of his administration. Hillary would coordinate a great effort at reform....

The day before Hillary’s plan was announced publicly, Bill told the head of the Arkansas Education Association that teacher-testing would be part of the reform package. The official was, predictably, furious.... [Hillary] was sure that testing teachers’ competence and holding them to minimum standards would help the schools educate. Frequently Hillary and Bill would talk about one teacher who, reading from a textbook, reportedly referred to World War II as “World War Eleven.”...

Bill, in presenting his budget plan to a special session of the legislature, called mandatory teacher tests “a small price to pay for the biggest tax increase for education in the history of the state and to restore the teaching profession to the position of public esteem that I think it deserves.” The teachers called it an outrage, racist. They accused the Clintons of calling the entire teaching profession incompetent. Civil rights organizations condemned the testing provision.

It genuinely pained Hillary and Bill that they were accused of appealing to racist sensibilities, just as they would be attacked for “playing the race card” to achieve welfare reform a decade and a half later. But it was also true that if a specific group of individuals were to suffer disproportionately in the process of reform it would be black teachers (and later black welfare recipients).

The union pursued its case in court—Hillary’s task force and the state were the defendants—for eight years. Most of the teachers’ wrath was trained on Hillary. Diane Blair remembered “walking through a crowd with her at a school, and you could hear teachers hissing at her. She just shook her head and said, ‘I get this all over the state. It’s heartbreaking. It’s hard. But someday they’ll understand.’” In fact, Hillary didn’t seem to mind too much. At times she wore the teachers’ enmity as a badge of honor, and for almost a decade used the example of their villainy as a basic component of the Permanent Campaign in Arkansas.

At first blush, Bush. The name would be easier to vilify. Would stir Dem passion, lower GOP turnout. Walker would be a strong, fresh, positive candidate, appealing to Middle America.

But Bush is the pro in the race, Walker a novice; Walker can easily stumble, e.g. on immigration; and Bush has a better shot to carry Florida and Ohio (with Kasich going all out for him but not Walker), crucial to GOP victory.

Quite aside from who actually gets the nomination and who ultimately becomes President, I like that Scott Walker's presence in the contest will shed light of the dynamics of government and public employee unions. It's an interesting match with Hillary, because Hillary herself took on the teachers union when she was was given that as her big project, co-governing in Arkansas. I would like to see Americans enlightened on the subject and given a chance to make some intelligent choices.

***

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service... It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations..." wrote FDR.

"Hillary herself took on the teachers union when she was was given that as her big project, co-governing in Arkansas. I would like to see Americans enlightened on the subject and given a chance to make some intelligent choices."

I doubt Hillary! will do anything to enlighten Americans on the subject; she needs the teachers and their unions. Of course, some of her minions may put out the word to moderate voters that she still believes in taking on unions, "for the children" etc. No doubt some of those moderate voters, looking for a "pragmatic" choice, someone "just like Walker but without the nasty conservative bits," would eat it up.

Black teachers really get excited about testing them. At one point in California in the 90s, Pete Wilson decided to reduce class size by hiring more teachers. The catch was that they had to take a test called CBEST. My ex-wife took it and said it was 8th grade material. The black teacher candidates went nuts about it.

When you consider Sheila Jackson Lee, Yale 72, UVS Law 75, you can see why they are upset.

Republicans will self destruct if things proceed as they have been. There is a good number that seem intent on clearing the path for Hillary to nominate three or four Supreme Court Justices because Common Core and Amnesty or that so and so doesn't oppose same sex marriage.

Who doesn't like Hillary? My liberal friends are abuzz about her. I hear her name tossed about in terms of glowing praise in casual conversations at the coffee shops and general stores all across Vermont!

Actually, the above was true of Obama. And he didn't really win by any kind of overwhelming majority, despite what democrat political operatives would have you think. Hillary has nothing like that kind of buzz. More like an electorate in the "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" mode.

I bet those 21 Coptic Christians that ISIS beheaded in the country that Hillary decided should be "liberated" are smiling down from Heaven on her this minute, in gratitude for her foreign policy acumen which is second only to Obama's.

Sodomizing Khadaffy with Obama's Nobel Peace Prize before executing him was the kind of class touch we expect from the Clintons.

@eric is right: Immigration is the skeleton in Walker's closet. Can he skate around it, plausibly reconfigure his stance, count on the media to bury it (I doubt that will really work in the primaries, but maybe), developing...

By the time election day rolls around, the world will be in such turmoil people won't give a damn about big government or unions. It's going to be about homeland security and who is going to put out the fires around the world.The next president is going to be...

I remember CBEST. At the time, the SF Chronicle posted sample questions (and answers -- a passing and a failing one -- for an essay question). "Eighth grade material" is throwing roses at it. And the author of the failing essay answer has no business educating children, period.

Really, folks, if you're going to be testing our children, oughtn't you to be tested yourselves?

I agree that Bush would serve to negate many of Clinton's negatives. Walker has a shot at the "working class whites" that form the basis of whatever strength over other candidates that Clinton purports to enjoy.

"It's not about the stumble... it's how you recover, and the guy who knows how to recover best will probably end up with the nomination."

One thing contributing to our defeat of Japan was that our Navy repeatedly practiced disaster drills, such as how to put out fires. The Japanese Navy did not, because it was beneath the dignity of a warrior.

I predict the Repub candidate who wins the nomination wll be the one who states he can not devise a smart but prudent immigration plan for the country until we first do an accurate headcount of the number of illegals that are here now.

Once in a while I listen to Rush (when doing work-related errands during working hours) and today he resonated with me.

Everybody votes for who's going to stand up for them. Since the Dem is a party of spoils, they get lots of special interest group votes. The GOP has a constituency, but they are not courting it the way the Dems court theirs; someone in the GOP seems to think poaching the Dem special interests is the way to win, at the expense of their own "special interest group," i.e., mainstream America.

The last few losing GOP nominees were nominated by the machine, because it was their turn -- they did not get the nomination because they were going to bat for the majority. It was pretty obvious that the best one could hope for in a GOP win was a reduction in the speed of (1) running away from traditional America, and (2) purchasing power (note, for citizens, not for Fed Gov). It was pretty obvious that giveaways were going to happen, and the deep pockets are the majority. It's really hard to care, let alone be enthusiastic, when the best you can hope for is to lose ground less slowly.

If another turn is provided by the GOP machine, I think Hilary has a chance. If someone who is on the citizen's side of the government/citizen tug of war, it's very possible that the majority could get excited and vote.

I actually supported Hillary Clinton in 2008. Now, not in a heart beat. After Benghazi, I can't imagine how anyone with any sense of integrity or character could support her. She is utterly without any redeeming value as a leader. Sorry, but I have to seriously question the morals and ethics of anyone who could support her.

Walker could overcome the immigration issue if he provides a cogent, logical reason for why he supported it, and what he supports now. The American people will listen to reason. The problem with some GOP is that they just dish out senseless talking points. I don't agree but I'm pretty sure the crap about immigration from the elites point of view is all about $MONEY$. Funding for SS, taxes etc. The American people aren't having babies fast enough and the boomer class is going to be a big drain on govt resources.

It genuinely pained Hillary and Bill that they were accused of appealing to racist sensibilities, just as they would be attacked for “playing the race card” to achieve welfare reform a decade and a half later. But it was also true that if a specific group of individuals were to suffer disproportionately in the process of reform it would be black teachers (and later black welfare recipients).

See, it genuinelypained the Clintons, dig, not like those fucking GOP-ers you just KNOW are racist KKKers deep in their hearts, no matter how much they say they care or support policies they think will benefit all Americans, including minorities. Feel her GENUINE pain, America.

Todd got very excited at that point and said: "It's not about the stumble... it's how you recover, and the guy who knows how to recover best will probably end up with the nomination."

Translation: Of course we in the MSM will do our part to make sure that Walker's gaffes figure heavy in our coverage with the usual double standards, distortions, lies and deceptions but suppose due to just dumb luck Walker emerges relatively unscathed and wins the nomination over our favored RINO?

It is a fantasy to think that if Walker faces scrutiny regarding "x", Hillary will also have to answer for the same.

Just wondering what makes an interview with David Axelrod so important. It's about as meaningful as asking people in the NFL pregame show studio who is going to win the game on Sunday. Filler is all it really is.

As for the all important FDR quote regarding collective bargaining by gov't employees that Althouse references at 12:22 PM, what is the reason for fire and police being exempt from the original law passed in Madison if that's the true argument?

The notion that Walker's happy talk, about welcoming foreigners who want to contribute to our Nation, blah, blah, blah, means he can't be nominated is BS. Of course, if he actually endorses the Chamber of Commerce line, he's sunk, but he hasn't and (so far) he isn't. I don't think he will.

The "bald spot" can be as big a plus for Walker as his not graduating from college. I hope he doesn't listen to those who claim otherwise. Al Gore put shoe-blacking or something on his bald spot, and that's not a precedent I'd advise Walker to follow.

Of course, right now, Hillary!'s handlers think they'd have an easier time dealing with Walker than with Bush, but that's primarily because they already know how they'll defeat Bush, and they assume that it must be even easier to defeat the governor of some fly-over state they've only heard of if they took geography in the 7th grade.

I think I'll be a primary voter fairly early (I live in NC, which is moving up in the process), and I'll be happy to vote for Walker. I LIKE Jeb Bush; I used to live in Florida when he was governor, and he was a good governor. But he would do as well against Granny Clinton as his daddy did against her hubby. And for a lot of the same reasons.

My understanding is that when Gov. Kasich and Republicans in Ohio tried to make structural reforms similar to Act 10 in Wisconsin, it was their failure to exempt police and firefighters that created the opportunity for the unions to then demagogue the legislation by frightening enough voters into believing cops and firemen would go on strike. They then reversed the legislation with a veto referendum.

So public employees in Ohio — police, firefighters, teachers, and others — ALL remain free to pay forced union dues and extort higher pay and benefits by threatening to go on strike against all the taxpayers of Ohio,

Still to early to tell--the next twelve months will give us a better sense of how these candidates do in a national campaign. Only Santorum and Huckabee have done that already, the others have only completed statewide. When the feathers start flying, we'll see who still stands!

Hillary has some remarkable weaknesses. I don't know any Democrats who like her, though they may vote for her if the GOP nominates someone who scares them. That suggests Dem enthusiasm may be down next year (granted, that's anecdote, but I don't get the idea Hillary has fans so much as hangers-on). She's going to try and hold the moderate pro-business mantle while also firing up the Left, but I don't think she has the skills for that. Her general weakness on the stump and in interviews will show, and if the GOP picks someone decent she may crash and burn under the pressure.

@Revenant I'm not disagreeing with what you suggested. I'm just saying that the FDR argument quoted by Althouse is not the true argument. The real goal is defunding a source of Dem funding. Cops and fire are usually not all that important to Dem funding.

@Meade It would be interesting to see if public employee unions are capable of earning their members by providing something above and beyond what nonunion employees might get.

Here in Chicago, I do not believe that unions have delivered for members when it comes to pension funding. The cops and fire are underfunded worst of all, for instance. Their CBAs preclude striking, by the way. At the state level, the legislature "borrowed" from the pension fund to fund their own pet projects. Again, I'm surprised members didn't challenge leadership on this problem.

@Revenant Reagan seemed to be in favor of collective bargaining for gov't employees, at least as it pertained to the shipyard workers in Gdansk. He even headed a union at one time. Granted he did fire the PATCO employees, but they violated their CBA by striking. But then I suppose RR would be an exception to the overall rule.

Bricap: "@Revenant Reagan seemed to be in favor of collective bargaining for gov't employees, at least as it pertained to the shipyard workers in Gdansk."

Unbelievable.

What Reagan "seemed" to be in favor of (because he was), was the freedom to not be ruled over by the Soviets and their communist stooges in Poland and elsewhere throughout Eastern Europe.

One of the primary reasons why our resident lefties hate Reagan so much.

The fact that the first to gain traction in Poland in their opposition to their Soviet masters and Soviet-led puppets was a trade-union and it's members really doesn't lend itself to a discussion regarding public sector unions in the west.

What I'm really interested in is what happened to those Clinton education reforms, and did they make any difference? And by "make any difference," I mean "make any difference in what young people know and can do."

Arnold Kling keeps saying that he is unable to reject the null hypothesis in education, that no change that has been tried makes much difference. As a high school teacher, I'm inclined to agree with him.

How is it unbelievable, Drago? I mean, here is the clip, and he mentions "Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost!" in the first 40 seconds: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/03/ronald-reagan-loved-unions-and-collective-bargaining/72633/

But just so you know, Reagan extended collective bargaining rights to gov't workers in California in 1968, lest you think it was merely trade unions on his mind at the time.

As for why other on here might not like Reagan, that's really not my problem.

And Republican voters hate the way some politicians pretend that all immigrants are criminals, not just the ones who come here illegally. Oh, wait, that's the Democrats, too!

And GOP voters really hate all that anti-scientific bullshit being pushed against GMOs, and nuclear power, and hate the Luddite attack on health care with the anti-vaccine movement, and ObamaCare covering aromatherapy and other fruitcake "alternative medicines". Nope, that's the Democrats, too!

So keep on deluding yourself. Enjoy it for the next 21 months. After that we'll have the election results, and you'll have to face reality.

Revenant, I didn't realize that Reagan was no longer relevant in the GOP. Is he considered a RINO now? Apparently not every Republican received the memo that you received: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/republican-governors-split-on-collective-bargaining/?_r=0

Maybe all the police unions who routinely endorse Republicans want to see their right to collective bargaining eliminated, too?

This was interesting: http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/dave_zweifel/plain-talk-indiana-s-pro-union-lunchpail-republicans-bear-watching/article_651f3fec-a1cb-5188-8c5e-c18f617eede6.html This is the group's site: http://www.lunchpailrepublicans.com/site/ (Or is this as anomalous as the Log Cabin Republicans?)

I get that most Republicans are anti-union. I also get that the recent amped up effort is largely driven by the money game. One has to be incredibly naive to think that money plays no part in the increased anti-union bent of the party.

I cannot speak for Republicans. But I can say that one need not be anti-anything to have a position on unions.

The question is an empirical one about whether individual members value their union-negotiated benefits more or less than the dues they would otherwise be forced to relinquish. That anybody would substitute their own judgment for that of those directly affected, and best situated to make a determination of value, is offensive to my sensibilities.

The other empirical decision is whether unions are net-positives for society. That is a harder determination. But all the talk of what unions did accomplish is so much sunk costs,that should not affect future decision-making.

An aside here, I took the CBEST exam in 1986, when I wanted to do some substitute teaching in the LA Unified District. So, it was established by Deukmejian, not Wilson. It was middle school level. As I recall, it was established when a number of Education majors at the state colleges turned out to be illiterate. Seriously.

I think Hillary would prefer Bush as she knows the Bush brand is damaged with Republicans.

Actually the brilliance of Act 10 with its police and fire exemption, beyond the elimination of the possibility of public service employee strikes was the parts of the Wisconsin Municipal Employee law that it left intact. Police and fire still have the right to a union, but the comparable contracts used to settle any disagreements through arbitration are the contracts of those who Act 10 did affect. Increases in wages and benefits are limited by this construction to not exceed the non police and fire increases. Absolutely brilliant!

Bill, in presenting his budget plan to a special session of the legislature, called mandatory teacher tests “a small price to pay for the biggest tax increase for education in the history of the state and to restore the teaching profession to the position of public esteem that I think it deserves.” The teachers called it an outrage, racist. They accused the Clintons of calling the entire teaching profession incompetent. Civil rights organizations condemned the testing provision.

What an incredibly racist statement/sentiment.

"Of course black teachers can't compete on their merits! It's racist of you to expect a black teacher to perform as well as a white teacher!"